There's no ocean between New York and Seattle alas.

> Which is fair enough, it didn't go supersonic over the UK or Ireland either, the pilots waited until it was out to sea.

I've read this, but I can tell you that while it went over the UK it was f---ing loud anyway. If it wasn't supersonic 30 miles from Heathrow (where I used to live), it certainly had the worst jet engines.

Boeing didn't fail so much as stopped because they saw a fuel-sucking aircraft that could only carry a handful of passengers as having zero financial viability. Boeing could have built one. Nobody seriously believes France and Britain had access to some secret science that the world's largest aircraft company didn't. They just knew it wasn't viable.

The Concorde consortium, FWIW, felt the same way. The plane we know as Concorde wasn't meant to be the only supersonic airliner when the project started, it was the proof of concept. The consortium basically shut up shop as soon as they got it out the door, making a few of that model and nothing else, because it had no commercial viability. Sure, the UK and France weren't about to enact noise pollution-based limitations on what was seen as a major political symbol, and despite the claims above, Concordes flew from Europe to New York every day. But it had no commercial viability, and larger vehicles wouldn't have had either.

It was a... well, I won't call it a bad idea, because they had every right to expect it not to come out the way it did, but it was a flawed idea. It turns out the implications of supersonic flying were more than just "Needs longer runways and a bit more fuel."

No, they put them into place for noise. At the time most of the major aircraft companies were working on supersonic airliners, and trust me, it didn't go down well with the US aircraft industry any more than British Airways or Air France.

I used to live under Concorde's flight path (UK at the time, about 30 miles from Heathrow.) Every day sometime around 6-7pm it became impossible to watch TV for 30 seconds (or listen to it anyway.) There was no way laws weren't going to get passed against it. The surprise isn't that America did, it's that Europe didn't.

No he's not. He's saying the invisible hand of the market will avoid those jurisdictions with Net Zero laws if those opposed to them are right.

Of course, that's not true, which is why the Florida legislature is banning it. They want energy costs to soar.

In what way does AGW need to be legislated at the state level, still less actually banning smaller governments from minimizing their contributions to it?

This isn't small government. This is lunatic government abusing its power.

This is complete BS from start to finish.

A level 2 NACS charger will cost around $250-500 plus installation. If you already have a standard 220V dryer port in your garage you don't need to install anything. If you need an electrician, the costs are likely to be around $100 unless there's genuinely no 220V supply within range of your garage in which case you might be looking at $500.

Trickle charging can take the car from 20 to 80% charged if done for 20 hours. Not ideal, but given the car has a range of 200 miles, and most people don't drive for more than 50 miles a day, you're more looking at charging constantly from 55% to 80% each day, essentially more than covered by an overnight charge. So for most people, trickle charging is fine. And what the hell are you talking about "spend an extra 15 minutes sitting in the grocery store parking lot"? Why would anyone need to do that? Do you think electric cars that are short on power somehow work better if left idle for 15 minutes?

For 99% of people the specs are fine even with trickle charging. Less than 50 miles a day is more than covered, and the occasional trip that takes longer will be covered by fast chargers en-route.

I must confess I love the idea of hand cranked windows as they were when I was younger. Why? I've never had a car where the electric windows didn't fail at some point, and it was never a cheap repair to fix them. Ford, Toyota, and Honda.

So, call me weird, but I'd consider it a feature, even if there are some minor disadvantages like not being able to operate anything other than the window next to you when driving.

It's more of a cultural thing. Americans generally seem to like "trucks" more than "cars". It's not logical, minivans are safer and cheaper to run and more utilitarian than SUVs, for instance, but Americans love SUVs and treat minivans as belonging to some other culture.

So, yes, you're right, this isn't an ideal commuter vehicle, but it's an ideal vehicle to sell to Americans who need a commuter vehicle but would otherwise buy something far more expensive, polluting, and generally crappy. It gives them a high seating position, an air of utility (which, TBH, it has) for non-commuting applications, and will, nonetheless, take them to their 45-minutes-away workplace and back in an efficient manner.

About the only negative I see is the 2000lb towing capacity. Whether that matters or not is whether you'd actually buy a pick-up/SUV for towing boats and trailers. Otherwise it's a very inexpensive vehicle with a huge amount of utility that'll work as a commuter vehicle for 99% of the population.

Insert that jackass here who always insists that nobody should be allowed to build or buy such a vehicle because it can't drive across the entire country without recharging and needs to be able to carry 15 sheets of dry wall, a fridge, and a large family at the same time. (Most US families are two car - this'll work perfectly for the person who needs to commute to work, with the other being a minivan.)

No you weren't. It's easy to argue against straw men, but nobody has said the Gulf Stream is going to change direction, they've said a possible consequence of AGW is that it may change direction, and if it does that's half of Europe looking like Moscow or worse.

I do, but it's to accelerate certain APIs that serve static assets which are poorly cached locally to their servers rather than used as a generic web proxy.

It's definitely a "You will need it, but not very often" type of tool.

> The people at Debian who chose to adopt systemd with less than the usual amount of debate, and at other distributions as well. I thought you participated in these discussions at the time? Guess not.

You thought what? Are you trolling? You're claiming you saw me, karmawarrior, on the Debian mailing list?

> sysvinit has never stopped me from booting, but systemd has. In fact I got into a situation where in order to troubleshoot booting, I would have had to use a debugger. That's when I noped out forever.

You've had super (and unusual) good luck with sysvinit then (and the bad luck to use systemd prematurely I guess.) sysvinit is literally why virtually every Linux distribution has had rescue disks since the beginning. Even Windows doesn't come with one.

Literally an NFS mount not mounting in /etc/fstab because the network didn't come up properly has stopped sysvinit from booting my system. And that's EXACTLY what you'd expect from sysvinit, because it's shit. It's literally a bunch of shell scripts hacked together.

> sysvinit with startpar and the LSB-derived daemon management boilerplate is more than adequate. If you want to use another init system, feel free, but there is absolutely no justification for deprecating sysvinit.

The entire Unix world disagees that a set of fragile shell scripts is a great way to boot an operating system. That's why Mac OS X uses LaunchD/SystemStarter, and why the majority of BSDs have switched from a tightly written non-modular shell script intended (bypassing sysvinit altogether) to OpenRC, and why Solaris uses SMF, and why most of the systemd holdouts have switched to OpenRC rather than try to continue hacking on sysvinit.

There's a reason for that. Your anecdotal evidence that systemd once crashed on you but you somehow never ever had an unbootable Linux system with sysvinit suggests you've never actually maintained a serious Unix-like system with any complexity.

sysvinit became unmanageable when ubiquitous networking was created. It's embarrassing the Linux world hung on to it for so long.

> The primary advantage claimed was that it eliminated init scripts

Claimed by whom?

The primary advantage of systemd is it deals with dependencies in a more sane way than sysvinit. There are other alternatives to sysvinit, systemd is the one that happened to take off.

sysvinit has been responsible for a number of unbootable environments over the years personally speaking, while I've always been able to log into a systemd system I've set up and been able to ensure daemons start at the right times, without needing to hack together sleep commands or anything like that.

There are other init systems that can also do that, but systemd is, for whatever reason, the one we standardized on. Alas it turns out the maintainers are pro-fascism. Which you'd expect given systemd is part of the corporatization of GNU/Linux lead by IBM and Canonical, like GNOME, Wayland, etc are as well.

So we need to switch to something similarly capable. Maybe this fork. Maybe OpenRC or something similar. (Disclaimer: I have no investigated OpenRC, but I gather it's a project with similar aims.)

Pick something. Just not sysvinit. The latter hasn't been appropriate since the 1990s, it's ridiculous we continued using it as long as we did.

They also manage more modern standards for color FWIW, ffmpeg supports several SMPTE standards.

As an aside, it's really difficult to type SMPTE if, for years, you've been frequently typing SMTP. They should change their name!